It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Agree entirely.
EON have hired some shockingly journeyman directors over the years. God alone knows where they plucked Spottiswoodes name from. I had literally never heard of him pre TND and have never heard of him since.
Yeah Tamahori was a joke and I don't blame Babs for hiring him as he seemed a reasonable director on the face of it.
But I do blame them for a lot of DAD. They signed off on the script, Jinx, the invisible car and the CGI parasurfing.
God knows I'm glad we have Daniel Craig and the reboot era but I always feel sorry for Brozza because he was made the scapegoat by EON for mistakes they made. In any other world but the nepotistic heirarchy of EON you would have to walk for the decisions made during the production of DAD but Babs and MGW just bin Brozza and go back to basics as if DAD was nothing to do with them.
Same goes for 007 Legends - one of MGW's sons oversaw it and I'm guessing he hasn't been banned from ever going near the world of Bond ever again.
All well and good to say 'EON learned from their mistakes and gave us the Craig era' but some mistakes are inexcusable and should never have been made in the first place and DAD and 007 Legends are two cases in point.
Good luck waiting on that apology StirredNotShaken.
I always got the impression EON's prerequisite on directors was to get them relatively cheap and relatively malleable. Even Campbell was a journeyman, just a journeyman that found his feet with Bond. I'd have him direct another in a heartbeat.
However, they seem to be steering away from this course, let's just hope they continue to select those with a reverence for the source material.
I believe this is why Speilberg never got to do one in the late 70's/early 80's as he would have been too expensive and would have wanted a cut of the profits.
Well yeah because if Cubby had said yes then there might have been no Indy but imagine how great Raiders as a Bond film might have been?
Raiders is the best Bond film that never was. And I'm also thinking of Spielberg's choice of shots. Can you imagine this shot but with Bond instead of Indy?
And how about Moore playing something like this?
Come to think of it, they might have needed someone else to play Bond...
Raiders is a perfect film IMO and to those who question Spielberg's talents I say: watch this film, focus on what he does with the camera and what he brought out of Ford, Allen, Freeman and many more. Steven Spielberg made one of the best films ever with Raiders. And it's not even his only good film. I'm a pretty big Spielberg person though. ;-)
Agree with you totally. It's why I asked in another thread where Raiders would rank against Bond films. The majority it seems think Raiders is better than any Bond. It's gonna be hard to disagree with that really.
Controversial time....
- Tomorrow Never Dies is a solid Bond film, and I like the ham and cheese of Elliot Carver
- Diamonds Are Forever, while not great, is not as bad as people make out to be. At least the film realizes that it is stupid, unlike the insipid and sometimes hilariously bad You Only Live Twice
- Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond, but there is no denying that he is starting to look very old. At least he is staying in shape for the films, though
- Goldfinger is a GREAT film. It sits at number 4 on my list and is still one of all time favorite films
- Roger Moore is a better actor than Pierce Brosnan
- I prefer Caroline Bliss's MP over Samantha Bond
- For Your Eyes Only is decent, but overrated
- Octopussy is unfairly criticized. Yes, there are some unforgivably terrible bits, but the film carries a pretty good plot and has one of the tensest scenes in a Bond film (Bond defusing the bomb at the end of the film). It's actually a good film, despite some crap scenes.
- A good majority of Bond films go too long
- Sometimes, I am just in the mood for a Roger Moore film
- I don't care much for Moonraker, but the final space scenes do have some very impressive visual effects
That's all for this sitting, maybe more to come.
The first half of TND is Brosnan's best turn as Bond.
Arnold's overuse of the Bond theme in TND hurt the movie.
There hasnt been a single satisfying henchman of note in the series; post Famke's Onnatop.
Domino and Solitaire are overrated Bond girls.
Rosemund Pike would make for a more attractive Bond girl now than she was in DAD.
GF is deservedly iconic but it's an overrated movie.
Jaws' girlfriend was quite attractive.
The weird thing about DAD is that although I can't stand the second half, the first half features arguably Brosnan's best Bond performance. He was finally given something to play with Dench ("What do you think?") and he rose to the occasion.
And although he can't hold a candle to Onatopp, Zao is the best henchman since her. Every other henchman has had next-to-zero screen time and, not coincidentally, next-to-zero personality.
"I don't care much for Moonraker." Really?
"Sometimes I'm in the mood for Roger Moore" barely qualifies as an opinion, let alone a controversial one.
Here's one: Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are the superior producers. A real passion for and attention to the source material.
Blofeld should have remained a faceless character in the films.
Well - do we finally have a new member with something interesting to say rather than being a troll? Quite an arresting post Siberia.
I find myself agreeing with the main thrust of your argument – we are here for controversy. Who doesn’t like a bit of Rog when theyre in the right mood. I’m as much a Fleming die hard as the next man but would I want to live in a world without any Rog Bond films? Not a chance. Enjoying a Roger romp from time to time is far from controversial.
So – Babs and MGW more faithful to the material than Cubby and Harry?
Well, apart from the fact they have no material left, this is an interesting theory that certainly needs some analysis.
First lets do a breakdown of who produced what to get an overall flavour of their tendencies:
Cubby: Oversaw DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO , TLD and LTK (although I’m not sure how much he actually did on Daltons second but he presumably signed off on the tone of the film) so clearly knew what he was doing in terms of Fleming. However he also delivered YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, TSWLM and MR (the last two on his own) and along with allowing the superspy character to emerge during the mid 60’s he has to shoulder a large slice of the blame for the clichéd Austin Powers stereotypes that became entrenched in the 70’s.
Fleming faithfulness: For allowing TB, YOLT and DAF and then TSLWM and MR (and lets remember that apart from DN and FRWL the faithful to Fleming films after that were largely responses to going too far in previous films; OHMSS was a response to the over the top YOLT, ditto FYEO/MR and the Dalton era was a back to basics after the excess he allowed during the Rog era. For these reasons I cant go higher than 6/10 despite the likes of DN, FRWL and OHMSS.
Harry: DN – TMWTGG (although his involvement in that was fairly limited). It was Harry who saw the potential and bought the rights and it was only really YOLT, DAF and TMWTGG that really pull his batting average down. He cant be accused of having anything to do with the overblown epics of TSWLM and MR however like Cubby he was a showman and given YOLT and DAF I don’t think theres any real reason to think these films would have been more Flemingesque or toned down if he had still been on board.
Fleming faithfulness: I would say Harry and Cubby’s attitude was the same – give the people what they want and at various times the public wanted Sean as the cool superspy with a carnation under his wetsuit and or Rog saving the world in over the top fashion. 6/10
MGW: I’m not going to count MR as although he gets an executive producer credit his decision making power in terms of the direction the script might take was limited for this film. Given both his exec producer and screenwriting credits I’m going to say his tenure starts with FYEO and overall he comes out of it pretty well. The only real failure (albeit a monumental one) is DAD.
OP, AVTAK, GE, TND and TWINE could hardly be called Flemingesque but they had their moments and don’t forget that of the films MGW wrote himself FYEO, OP and AVTAK were certainly the more serious of the Rog era in terms of tone and he alone wrote LTK and did most of the producing duties on TLD (and co wrote of course) and LTK so I feel he has always wanted to go for a more serious Bond.
The Brozza era seems to me like it may well have been treated merely as a transition as Babs found her feet and they just needed to show to the studio an audience that a) they could revive Bond in 95 and b) emerge from Cubbys shadow with their own take on the series which has now happened with Craig era. Brozza seems like a night watchman to me (in the cricketing sense non UK members), a safe pair of hands to keep things ticking over so although they tried to bring in a bit of depth that was similar to Fleming in tone (006’s betrayal, Paris Carver, Elektra) they didn’t want to take too many gambles so played it safe with plenty of gadgets and ticking all the clichés to make sure as many punters as possible came through the doors.
The reasons DAD occurred are rather beyond me as I don’t really see how MGW let it happen. Was it a misguided faith in P&W and Tamahori (although who takes more of the blame for this – him or Babs is one of the great mysteries) or perhaps the fact that he was getting older and took his eye off the ball? Certainly in interviews in recent years he doesn’t seem quite as enthusiastic as he used to be and appears tired – but maybe I am wrong here. Overall though his contribution is second only to Cubby but in terms of Fleming Faithfulnesa I would give him maybe a 7/10 as after TB Cubby's output was wildly inconsistent in Fleming terms despite still having plenty of Fleming material. MGW to my mind has always from FYEO to SF attempted to bring more of Flemings Bond to the screen and has presided over both the Dalton and Craig eras with only the lull of the Brozza era really against him.
Babs: Although she worked on TLD and LTK I don't really think she made any of the big calls regarding the tone the films would take so her tenure is only really GE to SF. Many of my comments about the Brozza era above are applicable here I guess. She did green light Jinx, the invisible car and the endless cliche box ticking of the Brozza era so on the face of it things don't look good.
However she had the strength of character and belief in Fleming to sack a very popular (at the time) Bond and go back to Fleming. Given the way Cubby was desperate to keep Sean and Rog for as long as was humanly possible there seems to be a policy of not to risk casting another actor when you have one the public like. Babs could easily have gone back to earth after DAD and made CR with Brozza (this whole thing about the reboot being Bonds first mission is very thin. Fleming never mentions this in the book) but it would have been too jarring to have the film as was with the same actor so we would only have got a watered down version of the CR we ended up with.
She realised she really wanted to go back to the books, bollock torture and all, and for that she needed an actor with some serious chops.
I think the Brozza era was her learning her trade. She learned frim the mistakes of DAD and now with the Craig era she has found her stride. OK she is maybe slightly obsessed with elevating Bond to be the darling of the academy but no one is perfect and she really has upped the quality of talent involved in Bond films which can only be a good thing.
Fleming Faithfulness 7/10.
I've surprised myself there. Babs and MGW are more faithful to Fleming? Am I seriously saying that? I think I might be. Especially one considers that the well of Fleming material was almost dry when they took over. Who'd have thunk it?!
That said Siberia's other comment that they are superior producers is something I can't agree with. Cubby and Harry were proper old school producers who created the Bond industry (well cinematic Bond industry) from scratch. I'm afraid the luck of having nepotism in their favour is something that, through no fault of their own, Babs and MGW can't overcome.
Cubby and Harry worked hard and took risks to become successful Bond producers. Babs and MGW were lucky enough to be born into the thriving family business so the path was always going to be a little easier. However the job they are doing at the moment is pretty good so all credit to them.
Not before lunch, please. I think they have ruined the Bond films.
2. Babs and Michael have ruined everything their father has worked for.
See, @Siberia asked a genuine question that alluded to 'why', well answered by @TheWizardOfIce. This just seems provocative.
Harry Saltzman also produced the Harry Palmer films which, as my avatar should suggest, I think was a very good thing.
Agreed with your views on gadgets, if we're going to have them they need to make sense within the story narrative and not just be there for show. I was never too impressed with seeing gadget development in Q's lab if they weren't going to be used in the film. It was just filler for some quips and lighter moments.
And I'm with @RC7 on this, it is provocative and it's an opinion that is completely contrary to the truth as well as the philosophy long held by Cubby himself. As my cousins might say, it's complete codswallop and utter bollocks. Cubby would be extremely proud of Barb and Mike and their incredible success and thumbed his nose at the very notion. The franchise has never been more successful since the height of Bondmania. And part of that philosophy is to change with the times and not to stagnate. As the times and public demand changes, the actor changes and so does the direction. If EON or most of the public shared your dinosaur-like views, new Bond movies would have ceased to exist long ago.
@Wiz- my compliments sir, an exhaustive and excellent dissertation that I found myself in near complete agreement with =D>
My thoughts are that all four producers have been invaluable to the series and all have made telling contributions at noted by @TheWiz. It is funny whenever I think of Harry and Cubby though because the first things that usually pop into my head are 'Elephant Shoes' (I love that story) and Cubby proclaiming "We're not Science Fiction, we're Science Fact". when asked to describe MR. Er no Cubby, it actually is Science Fiction ;-)
Do you have any specific examples?
In the main, I agree with your first point. I think the Q scenes up through GF were very good, but since then, most were blots on their respective films. Must say, though, I thought the Q scene in SF was excellent. One of the very best since GF.
As far as gadgets go, I couldn't care less. I've never considered them a significant part of Bond films. Guess I'm just not much of a techie.